MovieChat Forums > Lantana (2002) Discussion > Why wasn't Nik charged with anything?

Why wasn't Nik charged with anything?

posted 14 years ago by Barry_the_Baptist
10 replies | jump to latest

At the end it is implied that Nik was somehow in the clear after coming clean with his version of the events on the night Valerie went missing. What I don't understand is how the police and/or Valerie's husband were so easily satisfied with Nik's account of what happened that night and did not pursue the investigation further. Regardless of what actually happened, they have him admitting to picking her up and then tossing her shoe in the bush on the night of her disappearance. His silence after she was reported missing would only serve to cast more doubt upon his innocence.

[–] twilit 14 years ago

it showed her body being removed, i suppose they could tell from her injuries

[–] kylebryant50 14 years ago

I believe a combination of that she would not have any of his dna on her, like if she scratched him, it would be under her skin. The fact that there would be no signs of a struggle just of someone falling off a cliff would collaborate his story along with the fact that her emotional state with her daughter abducted would lead to her jumping out scared and running in the woods and off a cliff.

[–] Bklyn4ever 12 years ago

Totally has to do with the genre of the film. If it were a crime film, the accent would be on justice and his actions would have been scrutinized.

Just leaving her there when he knew she was either seriously hurt or killed could be negligent manslaughter or at least leaving the scene of a deadly accident. In real life he would have been charged with something.

But it is a romantic drama: all interactions have emotional or erotic motives and that is the focus of the film, not the legal issues.

[–] bill_onethroughfour 12 years ago

Had nothing to do with the genre of the film. His actions were scrutinized, and, as others have pointed out, the physical evidence completely backs up his story. He would not have been charged in real life because he didn’t break any laws.

[–] Eponymous-too 12 years ago

Not sure about in Australia but in the U.S. a person doesn't have to prove themselves innocent; the authorities have to prove them guilty. Even if they don't believe him there's not enough evidence that he harmed the woman to take him to trial. If Australia is the opposite - a person having to prove their innocence - then that is another matter.

"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."

[–] equivoque 12 years ago

Australia is the same as the US in that respect. My guess is he would have been charged with obstructing justice and got a suspended sentence at most.

[–] remembervhs 10 years ago

It's a strange situation, frankly, and I'm not sure if he could have been charged with anything.

[–] jenx42 9 years ago

I think that because we see him with his family at the end that we are supposed to surmise that the physical evidence cleared him of any wrongdoing.That or there was not enough evidence to the contrary.

[–] laurieann74 8 years ago

I didn't understand his explanation for not reporting the incident to the authorities. Ugh, he picks up a woman from the road, then doesn't explain to her where he's going, then chases her and doesn't scream out that he was only going on a shortcut. Then, when he gets home, he never calls the police to report that a woman he gave a ride to jumped from his truck & ran in the woods, that looked dangerous & snake-infested. On top of all this, it's all over the news about that poor lady missing and he still doesn't call, even anonymously to let the authorities know where to look. He should of been charged with something. Of course, it's just movie, but I would of liked seeing him charged.

[–] london777 8 years ago

He should of been charged with something. Of course, it's just movie, but I would of liked seeing him charged.
In First World countries the authorities have their work cut out securing convictions when crimes have been committed. The movie shows that the police were over-stretched and working long hours which impacted on their private lives. Why would they want to charge someone with "something" (what exactly?) when no crime had been committed?

He knew he had done nothing wrong, and was only trying to be a good Samaritan. Forgetting to tell someone you are about to take a short cut is not a criminal offence. He probably felt justified in not involving himself and his family in a heap of trouble.

He was very irresponsible for sure, but all of the many characters in this movie (apart from his wife and the woman cop) made some bad mistakes or had character deficiencies. In fact, that is the whole point of the film. It is a "drama" more than a detective story.

I did wonder about the scene where Dr Valerie Somers gets hysterical when she imagines a woman had insulted her in the street. It seemed so abrupt and out of character. But as things developed it was to show that she was always on the verge of a nervous breakdown, which made her jumping out of the ute more believable.